Senator Emmanuel Pacquiao may have gotten more than what he had wished for during his birthday celebration in General Santos City over the weekend.
His guest, President Rodrigo Duterte, called him “president-to-be.”
“You will be president. I think it is true,” said Mr. Duterte, advising the boxer-legislator to stay humble and keep to his style.
The two are in some sort of mutual admiration society, with the senator being vocal about his support for the revival of the death penalty and the relentless campaign against illegal drugs.
Pacquiao has certainly advanced from his humble roots, and his struggle has been an inspiration to millions of Filipinos. His dedication to his sport appears unparalleled and he has brought honor to the country countless times over.
Unfortunately, the senator is the embodiment of the belief that one can rise to high positions in government through sheer popularity.
His performance at the halls of Congress has been a lot less stellar than from inside the boxing ring. As a lawmaker, Pacquiao has short-changed his constituents by rarely showing up for work. Public service, for him, is less about empowerment than it is about giving. Finally, discourse is taken to mean a pompous delivery of speeches that heavily quote scripture rather than law and common sense.
Clearly, the job of a chief executive is so much more daunting than a lawmaker’s—and we have very little basis to echo the President’s warm greetings for Pacquiao.
The truth is, Mr. Duterte himself is now the President because of his image of being a no-nonsense, tough-talking, maverick local leader who simply gets things done. At least in this case, he has Davao City to use as a showcase of his achievements.
We have no doubt that, should he decide to go for the presidency a few years from now, the pugilist will stand a better-than-average chance of winning. Such is the nature of democracy, and we cannot argue with that.
What we find difficult to take is the readiness by which we seem to accept the yarn that a person’s popularity—or populism—would suffice.
